India is a great country !! We can file police case on 3 IPC sections for a simple misunderstanding !!!! There will be NO punishment to the ablaa for misusing the official machinery, wasting taxpayer money or for dragging elders to court !!
"...... FIR no. 57 of 2014 file by deponent before Bopal police station u/s 323, 498-A, 506(2) R/w 114 of IPC for trifle incident occurred on 08.08.2014, wherein the misunderstanding with regard to use of milk...." !!!!
and
".......now complainant and petitioner no. 1 stays together separately from all other family members along with their daughter ...."
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 618 of 2015
****************************************************************
VIPULBHAI PRAVINBHAI YAGNIK & 3....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
KSHITIJ M AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
MS HB PUNANI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
****************************************************************
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 05/02/2015
R/SCR.A/618/2015 ORDER
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report, being C.R. No. 57 of 2014 registered before Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad on the ground that the matter is settled with the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. H.B. Punani, waives service of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant, waives service of notice of Rule. The Registry shall accept the Vakalatnama of learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala, who is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned First Information Report is filed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 323, 498A, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners, which has been registered before the Bopal Police Station. The petitioners were released on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that now the matter is settled out of court, and therefore, the respondent No.2 has no grievance if the impugned First Information Report is quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioners further relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court:
1. Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31.
2. Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2008 (2) G.L.H. 53.
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 674.
4. Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58.
5. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675.
6. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that when the matter is settled, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the impugned First Information Report, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the same may be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala appearing for respondent No.2 produced on record the affidavit filed by respondent No.2- complainant, and submitted that the matter is settled out of court, and therefore, if the impugned First Information Report is quashed and set aside, respondent No.2 will have no objection. She further stated that respondent No.2 is present in the Court, and she has identified her. In the affidavit of respondent No.2, it is stated as under:
"...... FIR no. 57 of 2014 file by deponent before Bopal police station u/s 323, 498-A, 506(2) R/w 114 of IPC for trifle incident occurred on 08.08.2014, wherein the misunderstanding with regard to use of milk...." !!!!
and
".......now complainant and petitioner no. 1 stays together separately from all other family members along with their daughter ...."
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 618 of 2015
****************************************************************
VIPULBHAI PRAVINBHAI YAGNIK & 3....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
KSHITIJ M AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
MS HB PUNANI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.2
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
****************************************************************
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 05/02/2015
R/SCR.A/618/2015 ORDER
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report, being C.R. No. 57 of 2014 registered before Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad on the ground that the matter is settled with the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. H.B. Punani, waives service of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala appearing for respondent No.2-original complainant, waives service of notice of Rule. The Registry shall accept the Vakalatnama of learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala, who is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned First Information Report is filed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 323, 498A, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners, which has been registered before the Bopal Police Station. The petitioners were released on anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that now the matter is settled out of court, and therefore, the respondent No.2 has no grievance if the impugned First Information Report is quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioners further relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court:
1. Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31.
2. Jagdish Chanana and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2008 (2) G.L.H. 53.
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 674.
4. Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58.
5. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675.
6. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that when the matter is settled, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the impugned First Information Report, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the same may be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Divyangna Jhala appearing for respondent No.2 produced on record the affidavit filed by respondent No.2- complainant, and submitted that the matter is settled out of court, and therefore, if the impugned First Information Report is quashed and set aside, respondent No.2 will have no objection. She further stated that respondent No.2 is present in the Court, and she has identified her. In the affidavit of respondent No.2, it is stated as under:
"1. The present deponent is complainant of FIR no. 57 of 2014 file by deponent before Bopal police station under section 323, 498-A, 506(2) R/w 114 of IPC for trifle incident occurred on 08.08.2014, wherein the misunderstanding with regard to use of milk. The complainant as a mother was in stress for taking care of the child and in that emotion complaint was filed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
2. There was no fight, revenge or any ill feeling by any of the parties, but due to unfortunate and regretful incident deponent lost her tamper. In rage of emotions deponent-complainant file this FIR no. 57 of 2014 against in-laws and husband.
3. When elderly people and educated persons have console the complainant and to save the life and future of their daughter Krisha and now complainant and petitioner no. 1 stays together separately from all other family members along with their daughter Krisha as per the settlement dated 01.10.2014. Now complainant wants to see that everybody stays happy and the scar of criminal compliant may be removed from the relationship. By this affidavit I request this Hon'ble Court to quash and set aside FIR No. 57 of 2014 filed by the Bopal Police with its tendering my free consent and no objection for the same."
2. There was no fight, revenge or any ill feeling by any of the parties, but due to unfortunate and regretful incident deponent lost her tamper. In rage of emotions deponent-complainant file this FIR no. 57 of 2014 against in-laws and husband.
3. When elderly people and educated persons have console the complainant and to save the life and future of their daughter Krisha and now complainant and petitioner no. 1 stays together separately from all other family members along with their daughter Krisha as per the settlement dated 01.10.2014. Now complainant wants to see that everybody stays happy and the scar of criminal compliant may be removed from the relationship. By this affidavit I request this Hon'ble Court to quash and set aside FIR No. 57 of 2014 filed by the Bopal Police with its tendering my free consent and no objection for the same."
5. Taking into consideration the peculiar nature of the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, and the fact that both the sides have arrived at an amicable settlement, in my view, the petitioners should not be asked to face the trial. It also appears from the facts of the case that further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned First Information Report against the petitioners would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioners, and would amount to abuse of process of law and the court, and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned First Information Report is required to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
6. In view of the aforesaid, the First Information Report, being First Information Report No. 57 of 2014 registered with Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad, and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)
R/SCR.A/618/2015 ORDER
sndevu
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment